From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D32586349 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:47:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755546427; cv=none; b=kVVZfj/yoBpkXqnXH8kxYIymJydLt6Bth4lB/u4s4BDnIu0/CsWvK74/mkOnPBgSst005N5zGDOrpbCYRtIKwX7dPs9UTqts3Pwm+skIggsTvz+Jv5CSDRkNUHI0FK24sl/94swkXneil53C8j+B/7qTDaRrKejEgQK/L2TcJp8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755546427; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AbiPeFsWz6b/LMXZNYb1L2IdPoRI9DOkhhpVvBxmAl8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ia+ykENyOAZgHxopPF1MS06x4IIcLmDIR51goAeoTBksHwEH7mhnljwTT7xP4GXVY5caqH/Rwp4VJqUYCcbbSHJFSi/qRt0oYchULkaoFe4FGob/NAHrckjU8A70GVAohne5Xx+tUQ2TKbma5JZ/BRYYtSCavMh6yfXxCuoiXvM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=lg8qScmZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="lg8qScmZ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0F32C4CEEB; Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:47:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755546427; bh=AbiPeFsWz6b/LMXZNYb1L2IdPoRI9DOkhhpVvBxmAl8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lg8qScmZzsbeuWWAgCzSNsqWdrlkLax08x9uzHnBjOFTHVC8QEShJy3R73NFChabq kWhmqETHm1FBcY0TN61KKvxnacQwQ21qbxX1qyVedqIZkD+i61RDR9gc8G4+Ep3fQi psy/gaEtkKWb9egcyRbQZHF+aHhcCeGdUiTUWOVU8Lte/xwYNlBD+GF5O/ak2tD7BF GwpmPUVgOO/MqHkwxYQuOE/1BUmfK08TXJkOquXq3+++TLDRbKgkjOilVHKUpg9HpO GCvDKrpzXctbRoX3HwKAolv4QXMg/oubPJHQ07PyZqC8yz8gGL/Cy0Fnu4mx4IqAlv 2/pOKGThX+knQ== Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:47:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , James Bottomley , paulmck@kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sasha Levin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2216q733-8126-so9p-spr9-068r9q91qo80@xreary.bet> References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> <20250818211354.697cb25a@foz.lan> <6o4sp81n-q5rr-6n92-o48o-4pr34s9n426q@xreary.bet> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 18 Aug 2025, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > I tend to agree that such annotations might be useful as heads-up > markers for maintainers if nothing else, but what about missing > annotations? > > Is there a generally feasible way to figure out that they are missing? Maybe we can use some LLM to help us decide whether the code has been written by a human or LLM :P > And if that can be done, "suspicious" changes may as well be caught > this way, so why would the annotations be required after all? I am not sure whether we have more options than documenting this requirement, and then work with our usual tool, which is building trust (or lack of thereof) in the individual submitters. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs